Benchmark: Native findIndex vs Custom findIndex

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(100).fill(null).map((val, idx) => {
return {
id: idx + 1,
text: idx
};
});

Tests:

Native findIndex
arr.findIndex((zoom) => { return zoom.id === 30; });
Custom findIndex
let length = arr.length; for(let idx = 0 ; idx < length ; idx++) { let zoom = arr[idx]; if(zoom.id === 30) {return idx;} }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native findIndex
Custom findIndex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: native `findIndex` and custom implementation of `findIndex`. The script prepares an array with 100 elements, each containing an `id` and `text` property. This setup allows for a controlled comparison of the two methods.

**Native findIndex vs Custom findIndex**

1. **Native findIndex**: The built-in JavaScript method `findIndex` searches for the first element in the array that satisfies the provided condition. In this case, it's searching for an element with `id === 30`.
2. **Custom findIndex**: This implementation uses a traditional loop to iterate through the array and returns the index of the first matching element.

**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches:

* Native `findIndex`
* Custom `findIndex` implementation

**Pros/Cons**

1. **Native findIndex**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
		+ Uses native code, which can be faster than custom implementations.
	* Cons:
		+ May not provide a clear understanding of how it works under the hood.
2. **Custom findIndex**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can help developers understand the underlying logic and optimization opportunities.
		+ Allows for more control over the implementation, which can be beneficial for certain use cases.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance overhead due to the loop and conditional checks.

**Library Usage**

None mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, if a library is used elsewhere in the benchmark, it would likely be a utility library or a framework that provides additional functionality, which is not relevant to this specific comparison.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not exploit any proprietary or experimental features.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches could be explored for the custom `findIndex` implementation, such as:

* Using a binary search algorithm to reduce the number of iterations.
* Implementing a cache to store previously computed results.
* Utilizing parallel processing or concurrency to speed up the loop.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional changes to the benchmark setup and script preparation code.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

Native findIndex vs Custom findIndex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native findIndex vs Custom findIndex

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native findIndex

Custom findIndex

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):